It is Paul Xuereb's style to denigrate all those who dare take him to task for his often biased standpoints and his subjective interest when reviewing other people's work. He finds it very convenient to denounce opponents as "exasperating", "angry," "near-hysterical", "delirious", "thundering", "fulminating", given to "spewing abuse" and suffering from imaginary mental conditions, like "Manoelitis".
For several thinly veiled reasons, Paul Xuereb (The Sunday Times, June 8) has produced, yet again, a string of dishonest assertions related to my book It-Teatru f'Malta. He constructs another series of deceptive claims. For instance:
1. He repeats, falsely, that I am "speaking for (myself) in denigrating contemporary Maltese theatre". In fact, I was quoting from direct sources lamenting the "death of Maltese theatre". In my book, the reference to Fr Norbert Ellul Vincenti is taken almost verbatim from an article he wrote in Fokus, the cultural supplement of Il-Mument, on April 14, 2002. But Xuereb prefers to ram it down readers' throats that the quote is coming directly from me.
Far from "denigrating Maltese theatre", Ellul Vincenti's article exposed the following view, which I quote in its entirety: "Imma l-aktar teatru perikoluz taghna huwa t-teatru haj. Dak miet u ma jridx iqum. Nikkupjaw lil ta' barra, u naghmlu plays barranin, izda taghna ftit li xejn." The quotation, completely misread by Paul Xuereb, is reproduced, almost entirely, on p. 149 of my book. Then I also refer to "il-qtil tat-teatru haj" on page 165, on the basis of what Ellul Vincenti wrote. The source is duly acknowledged in end notes 1 and 2 to Chapter 10, on p. 168.
2. It is completely untrue that I have stated that I have "used" William Zammit's contribution in Melitensium amor. When that publication came out last year, my work on the chapter dealing with 18th century theatrical activity in Malta had been completed and was already with the editors. Since I had already included most of the essential material, researched from other sources and duly acknowledged, I did not feel the need to include more data. I never quoted a single word from Mr Zammit's most valid contribution, and therefore it is in violation of honesty that Paul Xuereb accuses me of "omissions" in respect of acknowledgements. Xuereb's insistence on this point is both obnoxious and redundant.
3. Xuereb declares now (and only now) that he has never set eyes on Anthony Everitt's (European) Report on Cultural Policy in Malta, including suggestions for the eventual creation of a professional, national drama company. When the report came out in September 2002, I myself mailed a copy to Paul Xuereb, addressed to him in his capacity as chairman of the Manoel Theatre Drama Committee.
4. It is false for Paul Xuereb to claim that I had "confidential exchanges" with him regarding the Manoel Theatre. When we spoke about the Manoel Theatre, I was occupying the public position of policy officer at the Ministry responsible for Culture. He actually asked me, squarely, to convey a direct message to the minister: a key person at the administration level should be removed from the Manoel Theatre if that institution is to be saved from its mediocrity and its malpractices. Very angrily he suggested that I should convey his message to the minister.
Paul Xuereb's outburst had actually revealed nothing new, as it is common knowledge that the Manoel Theatre is beset with internal feuds, especially those between the Drama Committee and the administration. I insist that there was nothing "confidential" in my conversation with Paul Xuereb.
Xuereb is making a big deal out of the omission of credits due to certain pictures used in It-Teatru f'Malta. I shall leave the issue to rest with the editors. Still I should remark that one can find quite a few pictures used by the Manoel Theatre where acknowledgement has been, in one way or another, omitted.
One such instance relates to the use of reproductions on the official brochure for the recent Baroque Festival staged by the Manoel. Another concerns the total omission of any photo credits on the Manoel Theatre's Performance Diary 2002-3. Paul Xuereb himself, if memory serves me well, has in the past failed to acknowledge pictures showing M.A. Borg, an early 20th century production by a group of English amateurs and a harlequin scene taken by Chretien & Co of Valletta.
On other issues raised by Paul Xuereb on June 8, I can only say that before he vows that the Manoel will not allow "incompetence", he should pause and reflect. It was he who persuaded the Manoel Theatre to stage The Knight of Malta, described by many as a colossal flop, a piece that is best forgotten. It is also his Drama Committee that has left the Manoel Theatre in a most pitiful state when it comes to infrastructural requirements on stage.
The Manoel Theatre operates an archaic lighting system of luminaires, dating back 40 years, and an audio desk manned from a back passage, creating clumsiness and inconvenience for patrons. The Manoel cannot even be considered a safe theatre, as there are no secondary means of escape. There were times when even the main doors were locked during intervals, to compel patrons to use the theatre bar. The only "lightsman" at the Manoel is working alone, including going up ladders and under no circumstances would this be accepted anywhere else in the world.
Nobody has ever known how the Manoel's "artistic director" came to be appointed and what his job description is. Yet, Xuereb makes a case about the Manoel's "competence". Also, in grandiose fashion, the administration claims that the Manoel Theatre has become "an acclaimed world centre" for the performing arts. Xuereb's total silence on such matters is in itself the act of a condescending accomplice to a massive dose of spin-doctoring.
This would be very relevant material for my next book. It would indeed be a pleasure for any researcher to denote the claim that the Manoel Theatre is now promoted to "a world centre of theatrical excellence" and put it in planetary context, at least as far as institutions like La Scala, Teatro La Fenice, the Met in New York, and Covent Garden are concerned."
The research would have to acknowledge that at the time of the "world centre" claim for the Manoel Theatre of Malta, Paul Xuereb was on the Board of Management and chairman of the Drama Committee declaring, on his part, that "Maltese theatre" had never had such a great coming of age. The research would find out that Maltese theatre "was alive and kicking" because the Drama Committee had allowed worthless Jacobean pieces to go on stage and sanctioned scripts in English that treated the public like sexually frustrated morons.
There is little consolation that the Manoel Theatre, in an act of appeasement, is going back to the practice of including "a couple of Maltese productions" annually on its bill-board. By allotting some funds for the projects it is doing absolutely nothing but dispensing of public money, while still saddling authors with the daunting task of finding companies to undertake their work or else produce it and direct it themselves.
It is clear that this is not the role of playwrights but the Manoel insists on shifting the responsibility upon them. For example, Oreste Calleja is being told that he himself needs to identify and procure nominees to stage his play, confer with them and provide an itemized budget.
Finally, Paul Xuereb insists that the development of Maltese theatre "cannot seriously be influenced by what the Manoel Theatre does". This view is pathetic, lacks vision, betrays a total absence of strategic perspective and marks starkly that the "incompetence" is actually sanctioned from within the structure.
Of course, if the Manoel Theatre banishes its own drama training schemes, if it has no energy to stage festivals in the local idiom, if it has no interest in outreach programmes and if it refuses even to stage the winning entry of Malta's only drama contest, than it is no wonder that Xuereb finds it best to throw in the towel. The Manoel Theatre does not even have the will to stage public debates to account for its functions.
A national theatre programme (as different from a mere compilation of events submitted by cultural groups) should involve much more. One of the ambitions of any "national theatre" should involve the development of conditions in which creativity and innovation can flourish for all sectors of the community. The Manoel's primary role should be not to hire out space, but to foster a rigorous case for action. It should develop, disseminate and apply relevant research into aspects of theatrical development, including educational commitment and communal practice.
Being unable to conceive this function for the Manoel Theatre, it is small wonder that Xuereb declares he finds no time for public debates, especially if they are of a "controversial" nature. Disturbance would not befit the traditional mantle preferred by armchair referees.
What I ask in conclusion is proof that the Manoel is not exclusive. How do we prove Xuereb's contention that the Manoel Theatre has adopted "a policy that is transforming the Manoel complex into a cultural centre of which most people are proud"? Which people? Where does one look for this "policy" if the same "artistic director" of the Manoel Theatre felt he should declare that the Manoel has no vision and no strategy?
Who is devising such "policy" when members of the Manoel Theatre Management Committee have expressed their grave annoyance that they are just being used as "rubber stamps" to endorse unilateral decisions? Who decides what is "competent" and "incompetent"? What happens when there is a clamorous flop, like what happened with the recent selection and production of The Knight of Malta? Who is held responsible for the fiasco? Who are the "incompetents" in such cases? Who allows and sanctions the trash, the flatulence and the coarse acting in English? What if that stuff, even by unknown authors, is put up in a vernacular version?
Who is accountable for the squandering of public funds on non-starters that make patrons run for the exit doors half way into a play or even before?
Who makes financial allotments for the different projects?
Who is responsible for the upheaval that is needed in the technical infrastructure of the theatre? Who is responsible for statistics showing the current state of play and a prognosis as to the likely impact of capital expenditure?
Who is responsible for the safety of backstage crew? Who is charged with securing their safety? How does the situation relate to current EU legislation on such matters?
How is the Manoel, conceived conveniently for reasons of status as Malta's "national theatre", said to be accessible to all when even its baroque structure has been declared, again by its "artistic director", to be unfit for alternative presentations?
How is the Manoel Theatre fostering creativity among children and youths? How is it reaching out to the peripheral margins like most national theatres in Europe do?
Where are the people's festivals? Where are their open days?
How is the Manoel Theatre promoting attendance development and participation through research?
How does the Manoel Theatre create and sustain an environment that supports those who participate in the wider range of the performing arts? How does the Manoel take it upon itself to create drama development programmes? How does the Manoel Theatre cater for the disabled in social inclusion programmes in the performing arts?
Who are the people enlisted as "friends of the Manoel Theatre"? How do they benefit? Do they adhere to neo-colonial modes of drama or do they believe in decolonising the mind? Do they believe in a process of overhaul to embrace social inclusion in the cultural sector?
Where is the evidence that the Manoel Theatre is not "a bastion of elitism" and that it is accessible "to all social classes"? Why do so many people declare that they see the Manoel as the domain of the upper crust and that they feel uncomfortable to approach this gilded institution, this "chocolate box confection", as someone recently put it? If Paul Xuereb has chosen to speak of social classes, how is the Manoel being made accessible to the lower middle and the working class, when ticket prices continue to be hiked up, sometimes reaching the Lm12 tag and over?
How is the Manoel Theatre accountable for the way it spends public funds, when the media are denied any information about its fiscal operations on the grounds of "sensitive", "commercial" impediments?
How is the Manoel Theatre made accessible to all social sectors when it is so detached from the authenticity of so many people's lives and when its cultural menu is not researched according to the concept of inclusiveness that informs EU charters?
How can the Manoel be seen as a democratic cultural entity when its calendar is always set according to the preferential rules of those who administer it and when it is so irrelevant to Maltese and Mediterranean realities?